The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

[robvalue]

It seems to me nothing could possibly ever rule out solipsism.

Nothing could even rule out dreaming. I know people come up with all criteria for when they are dreaming and when they are not, but they can't tell whether all that is just part of the dream.

You could be having a dream where you are, in the dream, having a "lucid dream" that you are "aware" is a dream.

But again, no practical implications whatsoever. It's just an interesting barrier to complete knowledge. There is no need to rule out solipsism any more than there is to prove there is no God or whatever.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing rules it in either, so there's always that.

[robvalue]

Indeed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

It seems to me nothing could possibly ever rule out solipsism.

You may be thinking of a weak form of “brain-in-a-vat / evilly deceptive demon” Cartesian solipsism as opposed to strong metaphysical solipsism. Nevertheless most people believe solipsism impossible to dismiss on rational grounds.

In Cartesian solipsism, there is at least a presumption that some kind of nomena lies behind phenomenal experience. In a Matrix or among zombies the personal existent still has a relationship with something outside themselves. It does not rule out the possibility of attaining knowledge either by “taking the red pill” or rational reflection.

Not so with strong solipsism in which all existence gets stacked on top of a single first-person observer. The claim of strong solipsism is this: that of which the first-person observer has knowledge is limited solely to that of which it is aware of in the exact moment during which it is aware. IF someone takes the stance that reality is intelligible AND the first-person observer is capable of knowledge THEN solipsism is self-refuting.* If even a single thing is independently true about reality then solipsism is mistaken.

There is at least one such property of reality that must be true independent of any observer. The first of which is the Principle of Non-Contradiction or PNC. If the PNC is true it must be universally and objectively true. If the PNC was subjective then the first-person observer would be able to contemplate its opposite: that something both exists and does not exist at the same time and in all ways. Anyone can see that this cannot be done. It doesn’t make any sense to say that solipsism is rational and at the same time say that the PNC is a subjective truth that depends on a mind’s contemplation of it. Something apart from the first-person observer constrains that which it is possible for the observer to concieve.

*The two qualifiers I mentioned (world intelligibility and capacity for knowledge) are important because absurdism always remains as an alternative existential stance.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your inability to imagine how something can be done is not proof that it cannot be done.  You should remember that next time you want to lecture the board on reason. You did a fine job directly before that, I don't know why you decided to add the bit about the PNC being true because you could not see how it could be done otherwise, because you cannot contemplate it's opposite. A person who claims to have rationally arrived at solipsism has presented a self-refuting statement. What more needs be said?

[LadyForCamus]

Chad, I think I almost choked on this word freaking buffet!  I feel like your strategy is to overwhelm me with loads of pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo so that I give up and walk away, creating the illusion of conceding due to lack of comprehension.  I am not that type of person though.  You used a whole lot of fancy looking dialogue in order to explain a few simple ideas.  (Ideas, by the way, you have been saying over and over.)

Congratulations! You have demonstrated a rare level of intellectual honesty that I find rare on AtheistForums.org.  As expressed in another thread, I, like the continental existentialists recognize the role and responsibility of personal choice as the starting point for philosophical reflection.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-39998-po...pid1144612

To paraphrase:

If both axioms (the reliability of intellect & the intelligibility of reality) are in fact true then knowledge can be attain. However, if either of those axioms is not in fact true then knowledge cannot be attained. One of the following applies: 1) we live in a rationally ordered world while we ourselves are incapable of reason, or 2) our capacity for reason cannot be applied to an irrational world, or 3) we live in an irrational would and are incapable of reason….Now you face an existential choice, one that cannot be rationally determined, empirically tested, or otherwise confirmed. Do you think these axioms are true?

First, what about a 4th option:  we live in a rationally ordered world, and we ourselves ARE capable of reason.  I like that one.

Second, I am not sure why you decided to use that particular thread as support of your position, as it didn't really go your way the first time around.  You posed a question:  

if you choose to believe that reality is intelligible and that the intellect is reliable, then it is reasonable to apply the Principle of Sufficient Reason and ask the following questions. Why is reality intelligible and what makes people capable of reason? But of course, these are questions someone ideologically committed to atheism dares not ask.

It is a simple question (I paraphrase): why are we capable of reason?  Why is reality intelligible at all? You tried to truss it up as a mystical, magical, and unanswerable by way of empiricism. What followed was that two veteran members gave you a perfectly simple, naturalistic, empirical answer:

Answer 1 (posed as a question, but an answer none the less):

I think a far better question is: why should reality not be intelligible without a god, and why should evolved people operating in an environment that confers advantages for reasoned reactions to stimuli not be able to reason? But of course, these are questions that nobody ideologically committed to theism dare ask, instead they just presuppose them as already having been answered, coincidentally in ways that align with their own worldview.

  

Answer 2:

People are capable of reason because of the evolved trait of abstract thought. Reality becomes intelligible by the application of reason to the information acquired through sense perception.

In short, we are capable of reason because we evolved that way.  Being able to process information about the world and assign meaning to this information favors our survival as a species.  Natural selection. In short, the Principle of Sufficient Reason is bull.  

So, when you realized the answer was a scientific fact you could not reconcile with your world view, you abandoned the thread. 

Moving on...

In that same post, I mentioned the question I pose to all those who advocate philosophical positions, positions that on their face appear logically consistent, yet present conclusions severely at odds how most people actually live: do you want to live a life consistent with your beliefs?

My question has broad application. Do determinists actually think their personal choices are constrained by mindless external forces? Do eliminative materialist actually think their own consciousness is an illusion? Do radical skeptics really think that no principle actually links causes to their effects? Do idealistic solipsists actually certain of only their own consciousness? The answers are clearly no, no, no, and no. You may want to keep my question in the back of your mind as you explore the depths of absurdist “reasoning.”

How nice of you to decide how other people think and behave.  I love how you ask open ended questions about OTHER people and then answer with closed ended "No's".  

Please do not try to color my having absurdist ideas and notions about the world as beliefs.   Just as atheism is not a belief.  Both are a response to lack of compelling evidence in regards to the world we live in.  If belief does come into the picture in any way, it stems from Camus's conclusion that we must BELIEVE life is worth living in SPITE of its lack of absolute meaning.  We must confront the absurd, daily, and continue to live with purpose in an ultimately purposeless universe.  We must create our own meaning in a meaningless world (while never forgetting that it IS in fact, meaningless), because the only other alternatives are either physical suicide, or a leap of faith in "god," which Camus equated to philosophical suicide.  It is precious, every bit of knowledge we can obtain.  It is the pay off of our ability as humans to reason and interpret information from the physical world. On the other hand, I understand that what lies beyond our universe (perfectly natural as everything else science has uncovered) will not be discovered in my life time, or maybe even ever.  Therefore, the universe (to ME) will always be in many ways unintelligible.  That does not make me less of an empiricist. 

Sant Peter teaches that believers do have, to some extent, a burden of proof when he tells his flock “be ready to give an account for the hope that is in your heart.” (paraphrase of 1Peter 3:15). In this particular instance the admonition does not apply. Radical empiricism, of the type you advocate, makes a tacit metaphysical claim. With the questions of my previous post, I challenged you to defend your metaphysical position. Again, stated in other ways, those questions being: 1) how do you (yes you specifically) empirically verify the claim that all knowledge is empirically verifiable?, 2) how do you justify the presumption that particular beings have natures while denying a principle that supports beings to study?, 3) In fields like linguistics, math, and economics, what principle(s) justifies the scientific inquiry objects as diverse as sentences, numbers, and trade value?

You declined to answer my questions and pose your own instead. May I suggest that you yourself are trying to avoid the positive claims implicit in your metaphysic of denying metaphysics?

We are going around and around here.  I did not answer your one question, no.  Because I don't have to.  I am not asserting that something exists.  You are. You are asserting by fiat that "being" has an absolute meaning and nature.  I am asking you to provide proof of your assertion. What you just gave me above is Bible scripture.  The "hope in your heart" is not the proof I am asking for, and you very well know that, but it is unfortunately all you have to offer in way of a defending your "metaphysical position," as you call it.

The knowledge in question is not yet “God exists;” but rather, that knowledge about reality can be gained apart from empirical verification that does not require empirical verification. Aristotle believed so and presented them in his Metaphysics. They are known collectively as the Principle of Non-Contradiction. YOU could introduce yourself to the PNC here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristo...tradiction. The point I have been making is that this knowledge is self-evident and necessary before any empirical investigation can begin AND is not subject of empirical verification

Thank you, I did familiarize myself with the principle of PSR, and was not overly impressed in terms of its power to sway me into a belief in god.  It is just a fancy way of saying "this type of knowledge is true because I believe it is, and it is obvious to me, personally."   Not very convincing I am afraid...


On to the more personal stuff...

I ask myself this question all the time. I initially joined to learn, intentionally making myself a target to put my own philosophical position to the test.

How long did it really take you to learn about the atheist perspective?  It is so simple.  Why are you still here?  I don't mean that facetiously.  

*long sigh*  With all this back and forth, there is still that question I have posed to you, personally, in other threads.  You still have not answered me.  Even if everything you claim about knowledge and meaning are true, how do you get from that position, to the Christian God of the Bible.  Please connect those dots for me.  If you can do that, consider me born again.  (JK! )

P.S. It's been a crazy day, so my apologize to everyone for any grammatical/spelling/logic errors found in this post!  I did proof read, but sometimes things sneak by.

[LadyForCamus]

Yeah so I definitely screwed up the quotation system. Apologies! Find some patience for my learning curve guys!

[Edwardo Piet]

Right now... I have infinite patience. Or at least it feels that way.

*Evie sighs a happy sigh of bliss*

[LadyForCamus]

Right now... I have infinite patience. Or at least it feels that way.

*Evie sighs a happy sigh of bliss*

Ooo! Infinite patience! Where can I get some of that?? [emoji14]

[Edwardo Piet]

It feels like I have it.